A Texan conservative Anglican -- yes, a square peg -- ponders both churchly and worldly things and enjoys his new church.

Monday, November 29, 2004

First Sunday in Advent . . .

was quite a day of firsts for me. This is my first Advent as an Anglican.

And yesterday was the first time I’ve taught a class at an Anglican church. My rector asked me Saturday if I could substitute teach the teen Sunday School at my church. (He said if the notice was too short, he could bring the kids into the adult class.) That sounded like fun, so I said sure.

I did o.k., but only o.k. The rust from not teaching in church in a while and teaching in what is still something of a new setting affected me I think. Going from giving short talks to skaters at a skate park (the main setting in which I’ve taught for the past year or so) to talking about collects to Anglican kids is a bit of a shift I guess.

But, hey, I’ll learn and make adjustments.

I might post more about my first Advent as an Anglican, but today and tomorrow I’m bit busy. So that will have to wait at least a couple days.

Friday, November 26, 2004

Churchly Quality Control V: Creeds

Creeds are a vital part of Church Quality Control. Indeed, the Nicene Creed came about from efforts to combat Arianism. Clergy were obligated to affirm the creed or to stand down. That creed became and remains part of the Eucharist. Participation in the Lord’s Supper implies you believe the creeds.

Creeds play a vital part in baptism in many churches. In the baptism last Sunday at my Reformed Episcopal Church, the adult candidate had to first affirm the Apostle’s Creed as spelled out in the REC Prayer Book. (For infant baptism, godparents affirm it on the infant’s behalf.) You don’t believe the creed? No baptism for you!

I have trouble understanding churches that don’t have creeds. Individual conscience is often cited in dispensing with creeds. Some churches take pride in having no creeds. Some, say, Southern Baptists are strongly opposed to creeds. And I can remember churches who bragged, “No creed but Christ.”

Well, that sounds very nice. But which Christ are you talking about? Just about every cult, ism, asm, and spasm has its token Jesus. So are you talking about the historic Christ of the Bible or a token Jesus, maybe your own personal Jesus that fits into your little box of “private interpretation”?

Because of all the counterfeits and honest misinterpretations that have been out there from the beginning, I think creeds are necessary to spell out the basics of what we believe – and frankly to exclude from Communion and clergy those who can’t say credo, “I believe.”

Now you can believe or disbelieve whatever you want. But don’t deny the Faith of Christ’s church and still claim to be a member of Christ’s church.

Lay non-believers need to be made welcome, of course. But they also to deserve to have the basics of the Faith clearly spelled out and defended without compromise. Creeds, almost by definition, play an important role in doing just that.

Now as for unorthodox clergy, they should be shown the door. If they want help, by all means give them all the love and help you can muster. But don’t let them lead anymore.

Of course, the historic creeds, though trustworthy, are not foolproof quality control. There will always be those who deceive themselves and others by reciting creeds they don’t believe. Some of the semantic and religious games liberals play with creeds can be . . . interesting, to put it nicely. (I am Anglican now, you know.)

Monday, November 22, 2004

If liberals want to keep the Anglican Communion together . . .

. . . they sure have a funny way of showing it. It’s bad enough that ++Griswold among other liberal bishops have pretty much said they will ignore the Windsor Report’s call for a moratorium on same-sex blessings. Now certain liberals are committing the ultimate Anglican sin toward Global South Primates.

They are being *gasp* rude!

Yes. Anglicans being rude! Shocking, but true! The liberal ECUSA bishop of Alabama, Henry Parsley (one of the six liberals in that state), had the temerity to muzzle the Archbishop of Uganda at the conservative Church of Ascension in Montgomery. According to a report from the parish, Bishop Parsley insisted on speaking before ++Orombi, then used his *cough* welcome to state the Primate had been invited to speak only about common missionary activity. That cut ++Orombi’s sermon a bit short.

To add backhanded insult to injury, uberliberal Louie Crew later remarked on the sermon being too short and said the parish had once been a bastion of segregation, which is historically not true.

Angered by this ill-timed snub, a motion was made at the conference to censure Dr. Williams for his absence. In spite of senior bishops pleading against this motion, it came to a vote and was defeated by only a three-to-two margin.

Such conduct makes me wonder if the ABC and liberal Northern Anglican leaders really want to keep the South in the Anglican Communion. Like I said, if they do, they have a funny way of showing it.

Thursday, November 18, 2004

Churchly Quality Control IV: Members (particularly a certain member in Boston)

I firmly believe Churchly Quality Control (CQC) should extend to members, laity, not just clergy or staff.

I’m not going to be able to fully post on this today, but there is a rather public case of such CQC in Boston. A priest has asked a state representative to step down from two ministries due to her support of abortion rights and gay marriage.

Her response is rather interesting: ''I'm trying to be a good Catholic. But this should be a separate issue. Church should be a sanctuary for me and my faith and not have anything to do with my work."

Hmm, so church shouldn’t have anything to do with her work. I could write a long post on how this is absurdly typical of American – and thoroughly unbiblical -- compartmentalization of life and faith. It suffices to say that, no, you can not separate everyday life from faith or from church. And the church can not ignore a member’s life outside church walls. The church certainly can not ignore a member’s willful public sin.

Among many factors, there’s one very practical reason I say this. The pastor at my old church on occasion tells of a time someone came to visit the church, but saw something that caused him to turn around and walk out. What did he see? A businessman that he knew was unethical.

When a church member is involved in reprehensible conduct, if the church doesn’t deal with it, then it becomes not just the member’s scandal, but the church’s as well. That goes double if that member is involved in any ministry. And indeed, the representative’s continued church leadership has caused offense within the Boston congregation. And I would be offended, too, to say the least. And from the outside, few things kill a church’s credibility with me than for it to pretend it’s o.k. to support outrages like abortion on demand.

It may rub some (many) the wrong way for me to say so, but I think the priest is doing the right thing in asking her to step down from the two ministries. Further, he would be wrong to ignore her public wrong and go on with business as usual.

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

As soon as they aired the intro I thought, What if I had small children watching this with me? The lack of consideration the networks show toward families is amazing sometimes. I still remember Fox running a promo during a football game showing Amy McBeal jumping onto a guy’s face . . . over and over again. Do the networks have any common consideration at all? Sporting events have a broad audience with a lot of kids and families. Why do the networks choose to make it difficult for families to watch them? If they must run sleaze, can’t they do it some other time?

And, no, I don’t have any kids. If I did, I would have had a conniption Monday night. As it was, I was one of those who e-mailed ABC immediately and let them know what I thought. And I rarely do that sort of thing.

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

If you see your church or denomination participate in something like this, then you can know that past attempts at Church Quality Control have failed or been nonexistent.

Blaspheming Christ’s name by using it to advocate for evil such as abortion on demand is intolerable. And it should not be tolerated. The way I see it, if you’re in a church or denomination that does such advocacy, you have two, maybe three choices:

1. Remove the leaders responsible.
2. Remove yourself from that so-called church.
2 1/2. ( 1/2 since I have mixed feelings on this one.) Remain in the church/denomination for now, but do not submit to any apostate leaders in it nor let one dime or one minute of support go to such leaders or their apostasy. Instead expose them and oppose them. (This is a more viable option where local orthodox bodies within a church have more autonomy as in the Episcopal Church.)

In the case of the mainline Presbyterian Church years ago, I fought the apostasy for a while on the local level. Then when I moved I decided to move out of that denomination as well. It frankly enraged me to see my denomination supporting abortion along with other evils.

You know, back in the 1950’s it was probably unthinkable to Presbyterians that their denomination would advocate for abortion. But in the 70’s, they already were.

If you don’t practice adequate Church Quality Control – and they didn’t – then there’s no telling how quickly evil can take over a church. Christians may be lax in striving for the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of the church. Satan is never lax in trying to destroy it.

Monday, November 15, 2004

The Church I Dream Of – Peter Moore

I’ve already found my church and am quite happy with it.

So I wish I would have come across this beautiful piece by Peter Moore back when I was still searching for a church. But I’m posting it today because it still so well reflects the church I dream of – and, in a way, am still searching for as well.

Friday, November 12, 2004

Churchly Quality Control II: Why is it Important?

I got ahead of myself a bit with my first Churchly Quality Control (CQC) post yesterday. Perhaps we first ought to discuss why it’s important (or whether it’s important at all for my heretic friends out there ;^) ).

I see the church’s mission as falling into two categories:

1. To guard, teach, and pass on the written Word of God.

2. To be a manifestation of the living Word of God -- or as the Bible puts it, to be the Body of Christ.

I don’t see anything the church should be doing that doesn’t fall into these two tasks.

Both of these tasks imply that the church should strive to be pure and free of error. If we wish to pass on the written Word to future generations, we don’t want to dilute or mangle it with error. If we wish to be the Body of Christ, we certainly don’t want to bring dishonor to Christ with our sin.

And these are recurrent themes of the New Testament. Again and again, Paul’s letters especially follow this pattern:
1. The Gospel of God’s grace through Christ towards us is wonderful and glorious, which should lead us to . . .
2. Righteous living to thank and glorify God and adorn the Gospel and to . . .
3. Make darn sure that glorious Gospel of grace is passed on without error.

Paul, as well as Peter, John and Jude, in their letters therefore engage in CQC. While pouring out their love for the church, they at the same time had strong words for willful sinners and willful heretics in the church. Paul went so far as to pronounce anathemas on false teachers and even wished out loud that legalists, uh, mess themselves up with their circumcisions. (Galatians 5:12)

History has confirmed the inspiration and wisdom of the apostles on the necessity of CQC. The Gospel and the church have been threatened time and again with Gnosticism, Arianism, Legalism, and other isms. And it has taken more than “dialogue” and “study” to protect the Faith and the faithful from these heresies. Without God using the efforts of giants like Athanasius and of the great General Councils, we not only wouldn’t have the creeds, we would hardly have the Faith at all.

And today in the Episcopal Church USA and other mainline denominations, we see what happens when churches abandon CQC. As Phillip Turner spelled out a year ago in his First Things article The Episcopalian Preference, the current accelerated decent of Episcopalism has its roots in its bishops’ reluctance and failure to appropriately discipline apostate bishops.

Seeing the CQC patterns of the Bible and of defenders of the Faith through the centuries on the one hand and of today’s mainline churches on the other make the need for firm Churchly Quality Control clear. And it has brought me to the point where I ask the following question without apology:

If a church isn’t committed enough to the Word to discipline grave error in its midst, then why should I be committed to that church?

Thursday, November 11, 2004

A huge topic I want us to wrestle with here from time to time is how should the church deal with error in its midst . . . or Churchly Quality Control (CQC) for short.

A (all too) frequent Protestant way to deal with churchly error, perceived or real, is to split and form another denomination, or at least to flee an errant church. And, of course, individual Protestants often will change denominations, as I have. Evangelicals frequently engage in such ad hoc CQC.

I have very mixed feelings on denominations, which I may go into at a later time.

Now the Pontificator advises some Episcopalians to leave their church. But he has such strong feelings on what he perceives to be Protestant denominations that he advises Anglicans who do leave the Episcopal Church USA to not join a continuing Anglican church but to join the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox. He sees the continuing Anglican churches as just more Protestant denominations and therefore not a good option. (Esteemed Pontificator, if I’m oversimplifying too much, please correct me.)

I don’t think that’s fair or accurate myself. To give two examples, the Reformed Episcopal Church and Anglican Mission in America at the very least seek to be connected with other Anglicans worldwide and hardly have a denominational spirit. The AMiA is a mission of the Anglican Province of Rwanda and therefore isn’t a denomination at all.

But in any case, the resulting thread is quite a discussion on what’s a denomination and what’s not, and on what are valid options for fleeing Anglicans.

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Who was it that said, “No good deed goes unpunished”? Well, the service and departure of Attorney General John Ashcroft proves it true once again.

There has not been one, not one, death from terrorism on U. S. soil since 9-11. Violent crime is down. But has Ashcroft been given any credit?

No. Instead, he has been ridiculed and vilified by the chattering classes because he’s a *gasp* committed conservative Christian serving under the eeeeevil George Bush. Oh, the horror!

Yes, honest people can differ on the Patriot Act he pushed. But the endless attacks on Ashcroft were more than just policy differences. They were filled with anti-Christian bigotry.

What’s ironic is that Ashcroft was not a divisive man. Heck, after the Carnahans beat him in the 2000 Missouri Senate race with the help of blatant Democrat-approved ballot stuffing, he had every reason to contest the results (And I would have.). But he graciously bowed out instead.

He was a class act who did a good job as governor, as senator, and as attorney general. But look at the thanks he got.

But hey, John Ashcroft, the One who counts appreciates your hard and thankless work to protect Americans.

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Rod Dreher (and Alexander Cockburn??) on a roll

Over at GetReligion , there is some interesting and predictably pointed discussion on how the Left just doesn’t get conservative Christians and other cultural conservatives. Even Alexander Cockburn gets in some amusing words on the cluelessness of his fellow Lefties.

And, yes, Rod Dreher has been on a roll lately.

Mark Shea gets some well-aimed punches in on this subject as well. And, yes, Shea is right. We’re not just talking about Lefty bias. We’re seeing Leftist ignorance and hate out in the open as rarely before.

Monday, November 08, 2004

Supreme Court update

I mentioned before the election that the most important issue for me was the Supreme Court. So (although I know many of you must be sick of the election) let’s look at the election’s implications for the Court.

Obviously, we still have a president committed to appointing justices who will stick to the Constitution and strict interpretation of the law. But now, in addition to a strong margin of victory, he has more senators to back him up. (The Senate must confirm his judicial appointments.) There’s been talk that he still doesn’t have the 60 Senate votes necessary to break any filibuster against his Supreme Court appointments. But I wouldn’t be so sure.

First, the ringleader of the judicial filibusters, Minority Leader Tom Daschle, is gone. And his obstructionism was a big issue in the campaign to beat him. That surely gives Democrats from swing states pause. Second, the new Minority Leader, Senator Reid of Nevada, is a more moderate and reasonable man than Daschle.

Third -- and this is overlooked -- a filibuster against a Supreme Court nominee will be much more visible to the voting public than the past term’s filibusters against appellate nominees. To filibuster a President’s Supreme Court nominee would be a high risk tactic that has never been attempted before (Please correct me if I’m mistaken on that.) and would likely inflame the American voter. A number of Democrats will think twice before risking their careers to support such obstructionism.

There is now extra incentive for the Supreme Court itself to exercise restraint. 11 states, even liberal Oregon, overwhelmingly approved referendums opposed to gay marriage. The Massachusetts rulings mandating the legalization of gay marriage in that state have had a surprisingly strong backlash. Many think that even had a big effect on the presidential election. I’m not so sure, but it certainly didn’t hurt President Bush.

If the old saying that the Supreme Court reads the election returns is true, then they are surely taking note of the wave of votes against gay marriage. In any case, they now know they would have to run roughshod over the American voter to legalize gay marriage. If this Court has any concern over its own legitimacy – and it should and it does – they may be hesitant to legalize gay marriage by judicial fiat regardless (for once) of their personal views. Maybe they will be more restrained on other social issues as well.

We’ll see. In any case, I am certainly more optimistic about the Supreme Court than I was even two weeks ago.

UPDATE: I’ve since read elsewhere that the linked site is satirical. And after reading it more closely, I see that’s probably so. I thought it was real when I first posted this. I guess that makes it even better satire.

But it’s also come to my attention that my post is hurtful. I did not intend that. I hoped to add some levity to bridge some of the divisions evident on this blog and many other places. My post has apparently done the opposite instead.

So if you’re offended, I apologize. And if you’re not in the mood for satire at this point, I recommend passing by this post.

I found out about this when one of my rectors e-mailed me this morning. This is wonderful news. And if you read the article, you’ll see there are other ways the REC is already playing an important role in Anglican realignment.

I want to be part of a worldwide orthodox Anglican communion. That’s one reason I joined the REC -- I sensed they shared my desire. But now it looks like it’s happening even faster than I hoped!

I told you to watch the REC.

Wow, if I get any more excellent news this week, I’m liable to explode!

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Tom Brokaw’s comments

Sorry this has been a political blog. Actually, no I’m not, because this election was important. And it was an important juncture in my life, I think. But I will nudge this blog back to that other dangerous subject – religion.

Speaking of religion and politics, I caught some prescient comments from Tom Brokaw yesterday morning. I’ve bashed the news media a bit, but yesterday morning he was right on.

In so many words, he said that Democrats have been putting down, or at best ignoring, evangelical types and their values for years. He said many Democrats don’t even understand evangelicals at all. And in this election, it came back to bite them.

Brokaw is right on target.

I wish I had a transcript to show you. If anyone comes across one online, please post it in the comments. Thanks.

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

Classy Kerry . . . and the Breck Girl

Kerry’s concession speech was classy and gracious. Heck, I have to admit he gave a better speech than Bush. Today John Kerry did a lot to take some of the poison out of the political atmosphere of this country. Kudos to him.

I was going to post some rather sharp words about Edward’s little campaign “battle” speech, however. But I want to be nice. So I’ll just say I’m glad the Breck Girl is a political has-been now.

The disparity between the initial exit polls favoring Kerry and his subsequent loss to W tells me one thing: Most people voted for Kerry.......before they voted against him.

Seriously, the exit pollers have serious egg on their face . . . again. I’m all for freedom of the press, but the exit polls are not playing a constructive role in our democracy. Instead, they caused stock market turmoil yesterday. And, as I’ve mentioned, jumping the gun on supposed results can tilt an election.

The exit pollers obviously need to change their methods and make darn sure their numbers don’t come out until the polls are closed. Do I have to say this again four years from now?

Kerry concedes. And I give him credit for that. Some of his more loony supporters wanted him to drag this out and are not happy shiny people. See the Daily Kos for some of the wailing and knashing of teeth.

I heard the news while listening to BBC3 Choral Evensong from Exeter Cathedral, by the way. The Psalm was 18. It and the service meant that much more to me.

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

Here we go again.

Democrats in Detroit, New Orleans, and maybe Ohio are trying to keep the polls open longer -- only in Democrat precincts, of course. You, see some people are more equal than others. Democrats pull this every major election.

As a past election judge, I can tell you it’s almost never necessary to extend voting hours. If there’s a long line at closing time, then those in line at that time get to vote, simple as that.

These Democrat attempts to extend voting hours only in their precincts are simply attempts to rig the election.

By the way, I’m I the only one who finds it interesting that Bush was ahead in Florida even before polls in the Republican (Central Time) Panhandle closed?

Some exit polls are out. They don’t look good for Bush. But they also look fishy, e.g. Kerry up 60-40 in PA? I don’t think so. 59% female sample? Men aren't THAT lazy. More over at The Corner. Still, the numbers caught me by surprise and not in a nice way.

The stock market sold off sharply on the exit polls, by the way. I just sold some stock myself to be safe, for what it’s worth. (Now I have more reasons to be opposed to early release of exit polls? Ha!)

MSNBC reports that the Philadelphia machines were not stuffed. Observers made an honest mistake in reading the counters on the machines. Let’s hope that’s all it is.

Move-on violating polling places is real -- and illegal – and is happening in at least seven states. There are also reports that they are sabotaging Republican phone banks as "volunteers." Again, the tactics of the Left say volumes.

By the way, I’ve discovered the National Review has an amazing blog. Yes, it’s biased with lots of anecdotes. But for infoaddicts, it’s addictive.

Republicans discovered that 30 of their get-out-the-vote vans had their tires slashed overnight in Milwaukee.

A couple Republicans were spitting mad . . . literally.

By the way, you might be wondering why I’m engaging in a blogging frenzy today. I didn’t intend to. But the Democrats’ long, sordid record of election fraud and misconduct provokes me. And the news media underreporting it provokes me, too. And both are at it again. So I’m doing my part to offset that. Viva la blog!

In at least two states, Move-on is engaging in polling place politicking that is blatantly illegal (at least in my state), and for good reason. I think they are really exposing their contempt for fair elections. Most voters don’t appreciate this sort of thing. I hope it indeed backfires. (I’m sounding like a broken record, but election tampering really ticks me off.)

If someone had tried to pulled stunts like that when I was an election judge, they would have been very firmly told to leave. If they didn't, then they would gotten a ride to the county jail. . . IF I was in a patient mood.

Apparently, Ohio has released absentee voting results. They show Bush slightly ahead. Also, ABC a couple days ago had Bush ahead among those who already voted.

Having said that, I don’t think it’s right to release results or even exit polling until after the polls are closed. Jumping the gun in releasing such numbers can influence the vote.

Something lefties forget is that the networks calling Florida for Gore while Florida Panhandle polls were still open suppressed the Panhandle’s Republican vote. That nearly decided who our president would be. It was wrong when it helped the Democrats. And it’s wrong if it helps Republicans.

is that the negative ads have been running wall to wall right up to Election Day. The big ad for Kerry seems to be the lying black and white ad I mentioned last Wednesday. Sorry, but part of that ad is a flat-out lie, and the rest of it isn’t much better. (By the way, I think the Bush campaign may have made a mistake in not taking Kerry to task for that.) And the big ad for Bush seems to be the wolves. As someone who’s done political advertising, I think that’s a masterful ad by the way.

Usually, when you get to the end of a campaign, the ads switch to warm fuzzy ads saying Candidate X is a wonderful patriotic man who hugs children, etc. The closest I’ve seen to that is the Bush ad which excerpts his Republican convention speech. But I’m still seeing the wolves ad more often.

Common political wisdom used to be that running negative ads right up to Election Day risks turning off voters. And I’ve personally seen a negative ad that’s run too much backfire. (Cobey-Andrews 1982 congressional campaign)

My roomie isn’t turned off by the ads, though. He finds them amusing. He’s even made up his own campaign ad line. He screams in alarm, “He’ll turn babies into gold!”

. . . which I’m sure you find about as credible as some of the ads out there.

Monday, November 01, 2004

Pre-election thoughts

Polls indicate that the lift for Bush from Osama’s home video is more slight than I expected. So I’m a bit uncertain again. But my prediction is out there. So I’ll stick with it. . . . Or I’m stuck with it.

But, unlike before, I’m at peace about the election. I’ve been reminded a number of times lately that God is control; He rules; He has the final word. A special Morning Prayer lesson for today, All Saints Day, especially reminded me of that: Revelation 19:1-16.

Two important factors about the election that are below most people’s radar screens:

1. Have you noticed that there’s these court rulings coming out against election observers, particularly Republican ones? But where are the efforts to stop fraudulent votes? There’s reports of people registered in multiple states – and of past multiple state votes. ACORN, a leftist group, has fraudulently registered people – and cartoon characters. Dead people have already voted. (I’m not kidding.) And it’s not Election Day yet.

There’s been a lot of noise about people allegedly being disenfranchised. But overfranchisment, i.e. voter fraud, should be the bigger issue.

2. Have you noticed how quiet the news media has been about Kerry’s voting record as a Senator? He’s been the Junior Senator from Massachusetts for 20 years with a very liberal voting record. That is certainly newsworthy and something to be examined before voting. But the news media has given him a free ride.

Can you imagine a presidential candidate with a “right-wing” Senate record getting such a free ride?

With Election Day upon us, guess what I’ve been praying with new vigor.

Lord, have mercy on us.
Christ, have mercy on us.
Lord, have mercy on us.